Brian in Boston

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Brian in Boston last won the day on April 4 2013

Brian in Boston had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

339 Excellent

About Brian in Boston

  • Birthday 09/15/1964

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

17,045 profile views
  1. While I'm sure that there are people who would love to see the Triple A affiliate of the Boston Red Sox relocate to Worcester, I don't know that I'd say that the city "is knocking down the door to get the Pawsox". Yes, in the wake of the failure of the proposed move of the PawSox to Providence back in 2015, there were those in the Worcester political and business communities who floated the idea that an effort should be made to lure the top-tier farm club of the Boston Red Sox to Central Massachusetts. For example, a pair of Worcester City Councilors - Phil Palmieri and Gary Rosen - proposed that City Manager Edward Augustus, Jr. begin working with the Worcester Chamber of Commerce, community leaders in the city's Canal District, and other civic organizations to put together a package to lure the Pawtucket Red Sox to a new ballpark to the city. There were those who opined that the site of the former Wyman-Gordon industrial property near Worcester's Kelley Square would be an ideal spot for a state-of-the-art minor-league ballpark. The city's non-profit Canal District Alliance reportedly reached out to the PawSox ownership group. Still, Tim Murray - President and CEO pf the Worcester Area Chamber of Commerce - is on record as saying, "If the deal (in Rhode Island) were to fall apart, I think people here would be willing to listen, but everyone recognizes this requires significant municipal assistance. Massachusetts, traditionally, has been reluctant to use tax dollars to those kind of things, and I think in most cases, appropriately so." City of Worcester spokesman John F. Hill has said that while the city is open to discussions with the team, Worcester City Manager Ed Augustus has no intention of using public money to finance stadium construction. The same question plaguing the PawSox ballpark plans in Pawtucket would be an issue in Worcester. Namely, who is going to foot-the-bill to pay to build the facility? In Worcester, a second query can be added to that one: Where's Worcester's plan?
  2. It is going to be interesting to see what transpires with regard to the Pawtucket Red Sox getting a new ballpark built in Rhode Island. The team is seeking $38 million in public funding - $23 million from the state and $15 million from the City of Pawtucket - as part of the project's overall $83 million pricetag. However, Governor Gina Raimondo and members of the Rhode Island General Assembly have been less than enthusiastic about publicly embracing the project. Stay tuned.
  3. San Diego Mayor Faulconer Exercises Veto to Restore Funding for Special Election San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has restored funding for a special election in 2017. That said, while the mayor has found the money to pay for a 2017 special election, he will need the votes of five San Diego City Council members in order to schedule it. Based upon last week's City Council vote, as well as public statements made by Council members since that time, Faulconer would appear to have just four votes. He is going to need to flip the vote of one of the five Council members who oppose the idea. The San Diego City Council will vote on two items this coming Monday, June 12th. The first would call a special election for November 7, 2017. The second would place Mayor Faulconer's hotel tax and convention center expansion measure on the ballot of that special election. By rule, the City Council must first vote on whether to schedule the special election. After they've done so, they can then engage in a vote regarding whether to place the hotel tax and convention center expansion measure on the ballot of said special election. If, on Monday night, Mayor Faulconer cannot successfully flip the vote of at least one of the five Council members who oppose the idea of a 2017 special election, a vote on his hotel tax and convention center expansion would be academic. At most, the Council could vote to send the measure back to staff, with staff deciding at a later date to place the issue on the ballot in 2018. A vote by the City Council on how to proceed with the SoccerCity development is not scheduled to be taken until Monday, June 19th. By then, the issue of whether a special election will be held in San Diego in 2017 will have been decided. Since the SoccerCity measure qualified for the ballot through a citizen initiative, if the City Council has decided not to schedule a 2017 special election, Council will have one of two choices: approve the project outright, or schedule its fate for a city election in either June or November of 2018. So, why might one of the Councilors opposed to either a special election, the SoccerCity development, or both decide to flip his/her vote? Since the City Council's rejection of the idea of a special election last Monday night, an independent, third party appraisal of the city-owned land upon which the SoccerCity development would be built has set the value of the real estate at $110 million. The SoccerCity initiative requires FS Investors -the group behind the development - to pay what the mayor determines to be the fair market value for the land as determined by an independent appraisal. FS Investors has said that they want to buy 79 acres of the Qualcomm Stadium site and lease the rest, with the group willing to pay 10% of the fair market value for the land it leases. Even if the City of San Diego were to subtract the cost of any public improvements that FS Investors were to make to the site from their yearly lease payments, the $110 million appraisal would seem to indicate that the city would receive a significant amount of money from the sale and leasing of the site to FS Investors. Given that the San Diego City Council is staring at a projected $36.9 million deficit in 2018 and a $20.7 million deficit in 2019, the prospect of the Qualcomm site generating real revenue based upon a $110 million appraisal could be tempting. After all, Councilor Myrtle Cole - who staunchly opposed the idea of approving a special election in the vote taken last Monday night - was once on-board with the idea of leasing the Qualcomm Stadium land to the San Diego Chargers for $1 a year. Now, whether FS Investors will be as gung-ho about the deal since the land has been appraised at $110 million remains to be seen. Perhaps, they'll now feel that the deal no longer pencils out for them. In any event, stay tuned.
  4. The New Jersey Jackals of the independent Can-Am League have unveiled a new logo package. Jackals Announce New Logo Designs
  5. Let's focus on discussing the on-ice developments in the Stanley Cup Final, rather than critiquing one another's posting style. Thank you.
  6. In the wake of SDSU announcing that it was ending talks with FS Investors regarding the Soccer City development, Matt Awbrey - a spokesman for San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer - sent the following statement to The Associated Press: "We have been very clear that the City cannot afford to keep Qualcomm Stadium open past 2018 and the Padres have clearly stated that the Aztecs can only play at Petco Park for one year after that. While we are still willing to engage with SDSU, this decision has unfortunately put the university in a situation where this process will move forward without their involvement." Further, in Monday's San Diego Union-Tribune, columnist Kevin Acee wrote: "Mayor Kevin Faulkner has secured multiple provisions from the group looking to develop the Qualcomm Stadium land and is ready to endorse the project. He would like to do so with the implicit approval of San Diego State, but he is also prepared to do so with his alma mater's implicit opposition." Presuming that Mr. Awbrey would not be sharing his statement without Mayor Faulconer's approval and that Mr. Acee has sources with first-hand knowledge of the mayor's mindset regarding Soccer City, it would certainly seem that the mayor has made peace with the idea of FS Investors' proposed development moving forward without SDSU's involvement. Which, given the fact that Faulconer is an SDSU alumnus, could be seen as a rebuke of SDSU's negotiating style throughout the process to date. It will be interesting to see how other high-profile SDSU alumni - including those on the San Diego City Council - respond to what can be seen as Faulconer coming out in support of FS Investors.
  7. Things are getting a bit "chippy" in here, folks. Let's focus more on discussing the on-ice developments in NHL playoff hockey and less on personally insulting one another/attacking other fan bases. Thank you.
  8. Turning this thread into a flame-war revolving around our personal opinions of another CCSLC member's posting style and content will not be tolerated. Let's focus on discussing the 2017 NBA Playoffs within this thread. Thank you.
  9. While garnering 87% of the votes cast is impressive, it isn't quite as awe-inspiring when one realizes that less than 17% of active registered voters in St. Petersburg actually bothered to head to the polls for this referendum. Still, a win is a win. Further, yesterday's referendum simply granted the St. Petersburg City Council the authority to negotiate a lease of longer than 5 years for the Tampa Bay Rowdies' use of the city-owned Al Lang Stadium site. To the best of my knowledge, negotiations regarding the details of such a lease have yet to begin. That process starts now... though, as others have pointed out, Tampa Bay Rowdies owner Bill Edwards has other - ahem - matters of import to address.
  10. Digby hit it on the head. There's simply no appetite in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for public money being spent to subsidize the construction of facilities in which major professional sports teams can play their games. At least not without said money being paid back by the sports franchise owners who will be the primary beneficiaries of the construction of said facilities. Bob Kraft privately financed construction of Gillette Stadium on land for which he paid fair-market value. As for the publicly-funded, up-front infrastructure improvements that took place surrounding the Gillette Stadium construction site, the Krafts have been responsible for reimbursing the state for the cost of said work via annual payments since the stadium opened. The Yawkey Trust - former owners of the Red Sox - knew that they couldn't get public dollars for construction of their "New Fenway Park" project, so they limited their ask to a request for $130 million of state funding to upgrade transportation infrastructure in the neighborhood and to build a pair of parking garages near the planned facility. No dice, which is why John Henry knew he was going to have to settle for renovating Fenway Park on his own dime. Jeremy Jacobs borrowed over $100 million from banks, put up $40 million of Delaware North money, and added a surcharge to tickets that generated another $3.2 million for construction of a replacement for the original Boston Garden. The City of Boston backed $16 million in bonds which Jacobs has had to pay back over time. The notion that Major League Soccer's New England Revolution were going to score a better stadium financing deal than the Bruins, Celtics, Patriots or Red Sox were able to wrangle is ludicrous. As for the Krafts' press release regarding this latest soccer-specific stadium development plan, I have the following questions: * Is the Krafts' definition of what constitutes a "full-value land lease" the same as UMass Boston's definition? Might the Krafts' assessment of the value of the land at the former Bayside Expo Center site be different from that which university leaders and state officials hold? That could be the reason for the soccer-specific "stadium-anchored development" plan no longer seeming "feasible" to the university. * Have all of the Krafts' efforts to date to develop a stadium for the Revolution within the Greater Boston urban core included their taking on responsibility for a "fully-funded, privately-financed stadium"? If so, why is this the first time I can remember them so publicly committing to such financing of the facility? And if a "fully-funded, privately-financed stadium" on property which the Krafts are willing to pay a "full-value land lease" for is in the cards at the former Bayside Expo Center site, would such a deal work at any of the other sites in Greater Boston that the Krafts have previously considered?
  11. Seattle Thunderbirds Seattle Steelheads Seattle Cutthroats
  12. Al Davis didn't found the Oakland Raiders. He wasn't even an employee of the franchise until the team had three AFL seasons under its belt. After the Raiders had played six seasons, Davis was finally able to secure a 10% ownership stake in the team. After six more seasons, Davis had his lawyers draw up a revised partnership agreement that usurped the control of one of the Raiders two principal partners - F. Wayne Valley, one of the team's founding owners - and convinced his other partner to sign it while Valley was out of the country, attending the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich. Within four more years, Davis had completely bought Valley out as a Raiders owner. While Davis presided over the Raiders' glory years, the notion that he "founded the team", or was an owner from the outset of the franchise, is revisionist history. Al Davis was a San Diego Chargers assistant coach when the Raiders first took the field. Further, his rise from being head coach of the Raiders to securing control of the franchise as its principal owner was replete with what could, at best, be characterized as shrewd maneuvering. It would more accurately be described as double-dealing, back-stabbing, and power-mongering. "Just win baby", indeed.
  13. The FIFA Council came to its unanimous decision to expand the World Cup tournament field to 48 teams in January of this year. As recently as last month, The Guardian was reporting that European and Asian nations were still "excluded from the bidding (for World Cup 2026) following the selection of Russia and Qatar in 2018 and 2022 respectively." If FIFA has changed its stand on UEFA and AFC member-nations being excluded from hosting the 2026 World Cup unless no bid from a member-nation of the Confederation of African Football, the South American Football Confederation, the Oceania Football Confederation, or CONCACAF is found to meet FIFA requirements, then they've certainly managed to keep that decision under wraps.
  14. So, the Vegas Golden Knights are reportedly set to hire Gerard Gallant as their head coach. Well, it makes sense from a headline-writing angle. GALLANT KNIGHTS FALL IN BATTLE